I help set rates for a Major Canadian Insurance Company! Some thoughts . . . | Page 20 | GTAMotorcycle.com

I help set rates for a Major Canadian Insurance Company! Some thoughts . . .

GreyGhost

Well-known member
Site Supporter
This thread is 19 pages long and I don't have the time to leaf through them all looking for an answer to this, so I'll ask here:

Multiple-bikes in a single-rider household

I hate that the premium I pay for each bike seems to assume that this is the only bike ridden. To use an example, suppose I have a BMW fetish and bought 2 identical S1000RRs, one in red and one in blue. I would presumably be paying the insurance company $2000/yr (e.g.) for each bike even though only one would only ever be used at any given time.

I feel like the owner should be charged a premium for things like liability and SABs and UM etc once -- reflecting the fact that when he's out there and being a risk and being at risk, he's on one bike while the other snoozes under a cover in the garage -- while the comprehensive coverage for each bike remain as is.

Perhaps that single, umbrella premium, is set to be the highest of the bikes in the stable so that you're covered in every possible risk scenario. So a guy with an S1000RR and a DRZ400 pays an umbrella premium equal to the riskiest bike -- the S1000, in this case -- only. So, say, $1500 for the liability, SABs etc on the S1000RR instead of $1500 for the S1000RR and another $600 for the DRZ; other line items on the policy cover comprehensive for each bike singly.

This way things are currently done feels like "double dipping" by insurance companies. Surely this can be changed?
The argument is that in many cases, the riders were double dipping (a friend or child was actually the primary rider on the second bike).

It would seem simple enough to create a form where you acknowledge that you are the only person that rides your bikes and no other person is covered. Then you just pay liability for the most expensive ride plus comp on all bikes. The only similar form that currently exists removes a specific operator from a vehicle. I am not sure if a change in law would be required to lock a vehicle to a specific driver.
 

Evoex

The God
Site Supporter
This thread is 19 pages long and I don't have the time to leaf through them all looking for an answer to this, so I'll ask here:

Multiple-bikes in a single-rider household

I hate that the premium I pay for each bike seems to assume that this is the only bike ridden. To use an example, suppose I have a BMW fetish and bought 2 identical S1000RRs, one in red and one in blue. I would presumably be paying the insurance company $2000/yr (e.g.) for each bike even though only one would only ever be used at any given time.

I feel like the owner should be charged a premium for things like liability and SABs and UM etc once -- reflecting the fact that when he's out there and being a risk and being at risk, he's on one bike while the other snoozes under a cover in the garage -- while the comprehensive coverage for each bike remain as is.

Perhaps that single, umbrella premium, is set to be the highest of the bikes in the stable so that you're covered in every possible risk scenario. So a guy with an S1000RR and a DRZ400 pays an umbrella premium equal to the riskiest bike -- the S1000, in this case -- only. So, say, $1500 for the liability, SABs etc on the S1000RR instead of $1500 for the S1000RR and another $600 for the DRZ; other line items on the policy cover comprehensive for each bike singly.

This way things are currently done feels like "double dipping" by insurance companies. Surely this can be changed?
Won't fly imo, because in Ontario insurance follows the vehicle.for example if you lend that 2nd BMW to a friend and do a group ride they are both in play.
 

LePhillou

Well-known member
Site Supporter
The argument is that in many cases, the riders were double dipping (a friend or child was actually the primary rider on the second bike).

It would seem simple enough to create a form where you acknowledge that you are the only person that rides your bikes and no other person is covered. Then you just pay liability for the most expensive ride plus comp on all bikes. The only similar form that currently exists removes a specific operator from a vehicle. I am not sure if a change in law would be required to lock a vehicle to a specific driver.
Actually its mandatory if me and wifey live in same household. If i want to say she's not driving, although she has a license, i have to sign a paper saying that she's not covered.

If it can be done for the cage, i don't see why not for the bike...especially since it's usually considered a secondary vehicle..and there are less chances that someone else will ride said vehicle
 

nakkers

Well-known member
Site Supporter
How are motorcycles any different than cars? If you have a Civic for your daily driver and a Corvette for the weekends and not winter driven, do you pay full premium for both vehicles?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

GreyGhost

Well-known member
Site Supporter
Actually its mandatory if me and wifey live in same household. If i want to say she's not driving, although she has a license, i have to sign a paper saying that she's not covered.

If it can be done for the cage, i don't see why not for the bike...especially since it's usually considered a secondary vehicle..and there are less chances that someone else will ride said vehicle
You are signing the opposite letter to the one that insurance companies say is needed for bikes. Their argument is that people that don't live under the same roof are driving the vehicles (eg you own two bikes on paper, one is always ridden by a friend or child and is yours on paper only). You need every person in the world to sign OPCF 28A before they would let you out of full liability payment on every bike.
 

VifferFun

Well-known member
Site Supporter

Blackfin

Well-known member
Site Supporter
I believe I already answered the one-rider-multiple-bike questions in another thread:

http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforum/showthread.php?140339-One-rider-multiple-bike-Riders-Plus-POV
The link has the following line: "Motorcycle insurance policies are contracts."

All the hand-wringing expressed by insurance companies about "flexible morals" seems vapid; if someone breaks a legal contract by, say, allowing someone else to ride their "second" machine when it is expressly written into the contract that that will not happen then the contract is null and void and the insurance company is off the hook, no? I believe the term "insurance fraud" would apply. The insurance hotline claims that fraud can result in, among other things, denial of a claim and cancellation of the policy.

The 28A form mentioned doesn't pass the smell test. Why is it worded in a "negative option" manner? Why not stipulate the tiny number of people authorized to ride the bike rather than expecting the seven billion signatures of those not allowed? I'm trying to think of why it's done this way: It can't be for, say, the case where a dealership tech takes the bike for a test ride after servicing, can it? Surely they carry their own insurance and that would cover the cost of damages or injury resulting from a crash that occurred? Or is it the case that if a tech crashes my bike I call my insurance company and make a claim?
 

Evoex

The God
Site Supporter
The link has the following line: "Motorcycle insurance policies are contracts."

All the hand-wringing expressed by insurance companies about "flexible morals" seems vapid; if someone breaks a legal contract by, say, allowing someone else to ride their "second" machine when it is expressly written into the contract that that will not happen then the contract is null and void and the insurance company is off the hook, no? I believe the term "insurance fraud" would apply. The insurance hotline claims that fraud can result in, among other things, denial of a claim and cancellation of the policy.

The 28A form mentioned doesn't pass the smell test. Why is it worded in a "negative option" manner? Why not stipulate the tiny number of people authorized to ride the bike rather than expecting the seven billion signatures of those not allowed? I'm trying to think of why it's done this way: It can't be for, say, the case where a dealership tech takes the bike for a test ride after servicing, can it? Surely they carry their own insurance and that would cover the cost of damages or injury resulting from a crash that occurred? Or is it the case that if a tech crashes my bike I call my insurance company and make a claim?
Your insurance and they would recoup the expense from the dealers, same as a 'no fault' collision on the highways.
 

OSIRIS_001

Well-known member
Site Supporter
Some thoughts to balance the discussion here:

York University Schulich School of Business Professor Dr. Fred Lazar (photo) reveals that Ontario drivers continue to pay excessive auto insurance premiums in Ontario while insurers rack up billion dollar profits.

Focusing on the top-ten insurance companies in Ontario in particular, Lazar finds that their profitability was higher than their Canada-wide businesses for each of the last three years!

Fireside Reading : Price Regulation Report OTLA
 

OSIRIS_001

Well-known member
Site Supporter
Ride Sharing Motorcycle Programs are getting popular ... RIDERS-SHARE.COM ..TWISTEDROAD.COM for example.

Insurance Deets here ... and here solves this basic issue and gives amazing flexibility to not get stuck on one bike for too long having to deal with disbursement of the asset and other taxes, depreciation issues - not to mention financing obligations.

Not yet available in Canada tho .. boo
 

Lightcycle

Motorcycle Nomad
Site Supporter
Ride Sharing Motorcycle Programs are getting popular ... RIDERS-SHARE.COM ..TWISTEDROAD.COM for example.

Insurance Deets here ... and here solves this basic issue and gives amazing flexibility to not get stuck on one bike for too long having to deal with disbursement of the asset and other taxes, depreciation issues - not to mention financing obligations.

Not yet available in Canada tho .. boo
A guy on here rented a bike from Riders-Share.com:


The insurance contract seemed to indicate it was valid in Canada:

COVERAGE IS ONLY VALID INSIDE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND IN CANADA.
 

Top Bottom